IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1.(cid:1)

LPA-1109-2019 (O&M)

(cid:1)

District Red Cross Society, Rohtak and another(cid:1)

....Appellants (cid:1)

Versus (cid:1)

Krishan Kumar(cid:1)

...Respondent(cid:1)

*****

(cid:1)

Reserved on:16.01.2026 Pronounced on:16.04.2026 Uploaded on: 27.04.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is (cid:1)

pronounced or the full judgment is pronouned: full judgment(cid:1)

*****

(cid:1)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR (cid:1)

*****

Present: Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants.

Ms. Sangeeta Dhanda, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

ROHIT KAPOOR, J.

The instant letters patent appeal under Clause X is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.02.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 20072-2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner has been allowed. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition, has set aside the termination order dated 07.04.2015, whereby the services of the respondent-petitioner have been dispensed with and has directed regularization of his services with the further direction to grant regular pay scale w.e.f. the date his co-plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.15 of 2010 have been granted the same benefit. The respondent-petitioner was however, held to be entitled to 50% of the back wages for the period he remained out of service with effect from the date of termination.

2. Factual Matrix

2.1 The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the instant appeal are as follows:-

2.2 The respondent was initially engaged by the District Red Cross Society, Rohtak, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant-society’) as a ‘Peon’ on 12.04.1991, for a stationery stall in the Court Complex, Rohtak, on D.C. rates. He was subsequently adjusted to the Family Counselling Centre (for short ‘FCC’) in the same position and continued working with the appellant-society for approximately 24 years with an unblemished record. The matter regarding consideration of payment of regular pay scale to the respondent and other similarly situated employees, was taken up by the Managing Body of the appellant-society in its meeting dated 27.01.2009. Finding the work and conduct of the respondent-petitioner and four other employees, who were junior to him, as ‘Satisfactory’, they were granted regular pay scale w.e.f. 01.02.2009. Since the orders regarding grant of regular pay scale were subsequently withdrawn by the appellant-society on the ground that the agenda passed by the Managing Body on 27.01.2009 was not confirmed in the subsequent meeting dated 18.06.2009, the respondent alongwith other co-

(cid:1)

plaintiffs, filed Civil Suit No. 15 of 2010 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, challenging such action.

2.3 In the written statement filed before the civil court, the stand of the appellant-society was, that the plaintiffs were appointed on fixed salary, which was increased from time to time. The respective dates of joining were not disputed. While denying the averments contained in para 5 of the plaint, it was stated that since the agenda regarding grant of regular pay scale was not confirmed in the subsequent meeting, the orders granting regular pay scale stood cancelled. It was denied that the plaintiffs are ‘regular employees’ of the society or were ever regularized. The suit filed by the respondent and four other co-plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 08.10.2012 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak.

2.4 It transpires that subsequently in the year 2013, despite dismissal of the aforesaid suit, the appellant society granted the benefit of regularisation and regular pay scale to the other four co-plaintiffs. The respondent submitted various representations to the appellant-society for grant of identical benefit to him, wherein he highlighted that all other four employees were much junior and such selective action of grant of regular pay